I hate to bother you with a
question like this so late in the election cycle, but I am an undecided voter
–in Florida (Lakeland, to be exact). Not only that, I'm the guy whose court case
on behalf of Theresa 'Terri' Schiavo almost won [losing a close 4-3 split
decision, and scaring the daylights out of liberals: SC03-2420 (Fla. Feb.23,
2003), denied 4-3 on rehearing—see below in the “SOURCES:”
section - in red-font with yellow highlighting -for citations], which was, most
say, a “miracle,” since I'm not a lawyer. (Non-lawyers usually can't represent
anyone else in court, but I found a loophole.) I did better in court than either
Jeb Bush or Schiavo's own family. – For the record, I also opposed Jeb Bush's
“Terri's Law” case, on other grounds, which probably made conservatives nervous
too. (Google me, my email address, & my phone number if you doubt this –or
see “SOURCES:”
below for links to The Fla. Supreme Court's website to verify my claims.)

So, what this means to you
is that not only is my vote important (more-so, as I'm a 'Florida' voter), but
as I'm a “high-profile” personality in politics, and have allies on both sides
of the isle, I might influence others, so I hope you see that I'm not wasting
your time here.

Anyhow, I've narrowed my vote for
the Presidential ticket down to six (6) parties, those listed in the “To” line,
above, but I'd like some clarification from each of you on where you stand on
the issues, before I make my decision; would that be ok? So, seeing 1 week 'til
“Election Day,” I'm hustling to give you time to respond –all of you. (I'm
copying my own State & Fed representatives & local press, in case they
want to weigh in, and I'm copying Dr. Ron Paul, because I'm using him as an
'good' example of when it's “OK” to flip-flop—to illustrate a point, because I'm
concerned with a lot of waffling of recent.)

@ OBAMA / BIDEN:

First off, thank you, Mr.
President and VP Biden for your support for keeping certain college loans at
3.4%, as opposed to the plan to let them go to 6.8%. Also, thank you for using
Executive Order to effect a “Pay As You Earn” program, that caps monthly federal
student loan repayment at 10% of monthly discretionary income, instead of the
previous 15% under “Income Based Repayment.” I don't know HOW you did this, as I
thought Separation of Powers prohibited anyone other than the Legislature from
passing laws. (I've got a bunch of degrees with high honours, and deep in
college debt, with no good job in sight, so this touches me.)

VP Joe Biden was also honest
enough to admit to an FSU student, recently, that loan & grant subsidies
have resulted in tuition inflation (see quote below), but what has he done to
fix the problem? Nothing. Furthermore, American 'college loan' debt has now
surpassed Credit Card debt for the 1st time ever –and college tuition
keeps climbing FAR faster than inflation, even though American Higher Education
keeps slipping farther behind other nations, so this meteoric rise in tuition is
NOT justified. This has occurred on both your watch, and that of all previous
Presidents: Your intentions are good, but what your administration has done is a
“drop in the bucket.” – I am NOT impressed.

@ ROMNEY / RYAN:

Rep. Paul Ryan, you are very
smart, and, like VP Biden, have acknowledged how excess loan & grant monies
have distorted the Free Market & caused tuition inflation: THANK YOU!
(Colleges jack up tuition because they know students can afford more!) BUT
YOU HAVE FLIP-FLOPPED on the subject of loans. (See all 4 quotes below, to
verify my claims.) – With all due respect, Paul: You also said: “and we need to
have a system of viable student loans to be able to do this.” If you want me to
vote for you and your running mate, I'd appreciate clarification on why you're
saying 2 different things, here: To be clear, you were right in the
1st two quotes: Cutting Pell Grants & Student Loans was the RIGHT
plan; Why did you waffle??

Gov. Romney, you are quoted below
that, opposing excessive Student Loans debt (good), but still OK with allowing
Pell Grants to increase with the “rate of inflation,” eh? I have not forgotten
your “economic” skill in rescuing the Olympics a while back, which is a good
skill in addressing “tuition inflation.” However, while everyone knows that your
state, Massachusetts, has top-notch Public Education & Higher Education, the
cost of tuition is (just as in EVERY other state) unbearably high. Even though
American colleges were the best in the world in the 1950's, nonetheless, college
was affordable back then, but it is not now. (I know it's partly a Federal
problem, since influx of Federal monies bid up tuition inflation, but your state
still did not have to cave in to the temptation to raise tuition when quality of
higher ed has not risen that dramatically.) So I am likewise NOT IMPRESSED with
your accomplishments here.

Before I forget, I'd like to know
the views of all the candidates on allowing Student Loans to be eligible for
Bankruptcy proceedings without the near-impossible “Undue Hardship” standard.
The reason I'm asking is NOT to get a “free handout,” but rather, if the US Dept
of Ed knew students could obtain bankruptcy, they would no longer make $1.22 for
every dollar of defaulted loan, but instead, they'd lose money on bad loans –and
they'd pressure Congress to LOWER the Loan Limits on Student Loans, and, as VP
Candidates Joe Biden and Paul Ryan have both admitted, the lower availability of
easy loan monies would cause college tuition to drop, since, of course, colleges
would know students could not take out deep loans. So, knowing this, why haven't
any of you “major party” candidate advocated returning Bankruptcy (and other
standard consumer protections) that everyone else has, even credit Card users or
even Donald Trump, who has filed bankruptcy FOUR times?

Also, since students are NOT even
told their loans lack bankruptcy when they take out the loan, this is like me
selling YOU a car with bad brakes but not even telling you about this. (Why
haven't any of you made an outcry about this obvious inequity?)

@ Pres. Obama – FLAT-OUT
LYING—This is wrong:

Pres. Obama, please take a look at
this portion of your website. I have some questions for you:

“WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS
DONE...Committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose [and abortion]...WHAT
MITT ROMNEY WOULD DO...Backed a bill to outlaw all abortions – even in cases of
rape or incest.”

Question—With all due respect, Mr.
President: We may disagree on policies and particulars, but why do you make
claims that everybody knows to be false? While Rep. Paul Ryan may have this
view, and only support abortion in a case to save the life of the mother, Gov.
Romney has never taken this position. Even the “liberal” St. Pete Times'
“PolitiFact” agrees—Observe:

“The ad from the Obama campaign
said Romney "backed a bill that outlaws all abortions, even in cases of rape and
incest."...In its effort to appeal to women, the Obama campaign has twisted
Romney's position to a ridiculous degree. We rate the claim Pants on
Fire.”

“President Obama, through a
campaign tweet, pegged Paul Ryan as supporting a ban on abortions, "even in
cases of rape or incest." [line-break] Ryan does oppose those exceptions.
Obama’s Twitter claim misfires in saying Ryan supports banning "all" abortions.
He has supported an exception when a mother’s life is at stake. [line-break]
That’s an important detail that is left out. We rate Obama’s claim Half
True.”

Pres. Obama: Although
you're not as “pro-life” as I'd like, I'm glad that even the Pro-Life Action
League admits that: “President Obama has declared his intention to reduce
abortion.” (“Pro-Life Action League Tells Obama, “Abortion Is Not Health
Care”: Group to Protest Health Care Speech at A.M.A. Meeting,” by League Staff,
June 16, 2009: http://prolifeaction.org/hotline/2009/pr90615/
)

I also appreciate your speech at
Notre Dame, where you supported “the need to reduce unwanted pregnancies
and encourage adoptions...[and that] Obama called
for
each side to
stop dehumanizing the other.” (“At Notre Dame,
Obama tackles abortion debate,” by John McCormick & Manya A. Brachear, LA
TIMES, May 18, 2009: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/18/nation/na-obama-notre18
)

But, Mr. President, besides a lot
of flip-flopping that you (and other candidates) regularly do, bearing false
testimony about your brethren here is NOT presidential, and I'd like you (or
your staff) to explain this to me, ok? (If it was a mistake, I'm not going to
crucify you, but inquiring minds would like to know.) Speaking of which...

@ MITT ROMNEY re
Flip-Flopping on abortion:

While I don't like any candidate
“flip-flopping,” I will give you credit for an honest change of mind, because
you admitted to your flip-flop, and explained your change of heart here,
OK?

“It’s also worth noting that
Romney has not denied a change of heart on abortion...In an interview with the
conservative blog RedState in September 2006, Romney said, "My position changed
during the stem-cell research debate. The provost of Harvard and the head of
stem-cell research came into my office and at one point said that stem-cell
research was not a moral issue because they killed the embryo at 14 days. And it
hit me hard at that very moment that the Roe v. Wade philosophy had cheapened
the value of human life. And I said to my chief of staff, who was with me in the
meeting, as we came outside, ‘I am no longer content with the description of my
position. I want to call myself pro-life.’ "”

(“Mitt Romney evolved
significantly in his position on abortion,” PolitiFact)

Apology Tour—Both Gov.
Romney and Pres. Obama were WRONG:

During the 3rd
Presidential Debate, Gov. Romney said Pres. Obama was wrong to go on an apology
tour, but Pres. Obama denied that he went on any “apology tour”:

COMMENTS – BOTH are wrong here:
First, Gov. Romney is correct (and Pres. Obama was wrong) in his claims here:
“Obama did indeed mention past U.S. flaws in speeches,” which any reasonable
listener would infer as Obama apologising. HOWEVER, Pres. Obama is technically
right—and Gov. Romney technically wrong: “But in those addresses, Obama never
[verbatim] uttered an apology [that is, said: “I'm sorry; I apologise”] for the
United States.”

FURTHER COMMENTS: The more
important thing, though is that America HAS done a lot of horrendous things,
like invading countries that were really no threat, or even if we invaded &
“did good,” like removing Saddam Hussein (under the Bush administration) or
capturing Osama bin Laden (under the Obama administration), we stayed WAAAY too
long in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and this is wrong on 3
fronts:

Hurts our economy (proof
below)

Costs American lives

Costs us goodwill with other
nations. (How would we like it if, say, China, invaded our country &
stayed for decades?)

So, President Obama was RIGHT to
be man enough to apologise for America's many offenses, and Gov. Romney, you
were wrong to criticise him, ok?

[Everyone know this is true, but
below is a link to CNN to verify – just to be on the safe side.]

(“The federal government "can cut
all of the non-military discretionary spending and not balance the budget.",”
PolitiFact)

@ Pres. Obama: See
below—you flip-flopped on whether we should raise the Debt Ceiling = not good.
But you were honest enough to admit that you regretted having to raise it. You
also flip-flopped on whether or not to take money from super PAC's (see below),
which, in my opinion, tends to 'corrupt,' Democracy if used in excess, but you
were also honest enough to admit you want to stop them, so I'm not going to hold
it against you if you took advantage of something in order to keep from wasting
the opportunity.

However, see below that: You
flip-flopped on whether or not a US President has the power to authorize an
attack (on say, Lybia) if there was no imminent threat to the U.S. Here, you
offered no good reason for changing your mind to that of the 'War Hawks,' and
have gone back on your word to get us out of these unauthorised foreign
conflict.

What gives, Mr. President??

Also, troubling is the fact you
flip-flopped on “ObamaCare”: You were against it before you were for it.
Remember? (If you forget, see below, for citations to your visit to the Ellen
DeGeneres show when you were running against former Sen. Hillary Clinton
(D-N.Y.)

You never explained why you
changed your mind – I find that very disingenuous. (Did apologise for your flop,
and explain why you changed your mind? Did I miss something?)

Mr. President: You also appear
to have flip-flopped on our Second Amendment Rights. Please take a look at the
two quotes below, and please tell me why you changed your mind?

PRO: “Silent on the
DC ban [line-break] In the months leading up to the Supreme Court decision,
Obama did, in fact, skirt the issue of whether he though the DC gun ban was
constitutional. Instead, he repeatedly said he believed the Second Amendment
protected an individual's right to bear arms, but that it does not preclude
local governments from enacting "common sense" laws to keep guns out of the
hands of criminals and children.”

You aren't trying to disarm us,
like Hitler did to his citizens, now are you? (I'm not trying to be offensive,
but I just can't see how your 2 statements above can be reconciled??)

While flip-flopping is not
good, please see Dr. Ron Paul's flip-flop on the Death Penalty, below, and
notice that he had a good reason for changing his mind –and he didn't try to
play both sides of the fence about it—He admitted his flip-flop:

“Too many convictions, not
necessarily federal, have been found to be in error, but only after years of
incarcerating innocent people who later were released on DNA evidence. Rich
people when guilty are rarely found guilty and sentenced to death.”

Comments: Dr. Ron Paul
flip-flopped on the Death Penalty, but it was only because it has been unfairly
applied (discriminating against poor and minorities), but also incorrectly
applied (with DNA evidence to prove innocent people have been improperly found
guilty and sentenced to death). So, Dr. Paul's “flip-flop” is something that he
both admitted to doing, explained, and is justified.

If I don't get some answers
from any of you, then I think I'm going to vote for this fellow, below, OK? He's
the “Constitution Party” candidate, and he's not just as a write-in either: His
name is on the ballot:

Pro-Life,
Pro-Traditional-Marriage, Pro-Second-Amendment, Fiscally Conservative,
Anti-illegal-immigration, Pro-Defense, Anti-Nation-Building,
Pro-U.S.-sovereignty, For Term Limits, Smaller-Gov't, For state/local control of
Higher Ed, Supports support ending the U.S. Dept. of Ed.

@ GOV. ROMNEY: I
don't know enough about Bain Capitol to suggest you may have oppressed workers
(a common accusation), so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Also,
while ObamaCare (Socialised Medicine) sounds like it may bankrupt us, I won't
hold it against you for having “RomneyCare” in Massachusetts, since States'
Rights are one thing: National Healthcare is another.

And: I notice (see below) that, in
spite of all the rumours, you didn't flip-flop on either TARP or on gay
marriage, and so I am thinking that you might be a good, honest President if you
get in there.

HOWEVER, you
flip-flopped on both Reaganomics as well as the 'no new taxes'
pledge. Did you really change your mind, and become conservative, or was it
merely politically expediency? (Can we really trust you to not pull a fast one,
like most other prior administrations of BOTH political parties, and run up the
debt 'til we go bankrupt?)

@ PRES. OBAMA:

Same type of question for you: See
below—you flip-flopped on Gay Marriage –twice. What gives?

Now, for some REALLY tough
questions...

@ Gov. GARY JOHNSON / Judge
JIM GRAY:

With all due respect, former Gov.
Johnson: I am a 'Ron Paul' Republican, and agree with practically all his
views—as do you, and I'm VERY impressed at how you managed your state's budget
while you were governor of New Mexico, ok? However, 1 or 2 things really trouble
me, and my vote is, instead, going to one of the 2 major party candidates –or
more likely, former Rep. Virgil Goode, the Constitution Party Candidate –if you
don't have a quick change of heart here:

Gary Johnson supports
'right' to abortion and Gay Marriage:

““I support a woman’s right to
choose,” Johnson said this week. “I do believe that Israel is an important ally
and will remain so in the future…I do believe in [gay] marriage equality.”

Gov. Johnson and Judge Gray: I'm
not prejudiced against gays, and I do believe they deserve all the rights, such
as hospital visitation, inheritance, and the same contract benefits offered to
married couples at work –but gay marriage is against God's clear standards.
Further: Looking at Luke 1:41 and Luke 1:44 of The Holy Bible (you're a
Christian, like me, right?), you see the unborn child called a BABY, not a “blob
of tissue.”

Luke 1:41, King James Version
(KJV) Holy Bible:

“41 And it came to pass, that,
when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and
Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:”

Luke 1:44, King James Version
(KJV) Holy Bible:

“44 For, lo, as soon as the voice
of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for
joy.”

So, with all due respect, Gary, if
you want my vote, you're going to have to explain to me how it would be “OK” for
the Federal Government to permit killing of babies in the womb (in clear
violation of the above -and the 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' mandates in the Old
Testament), but somehow the Federal Government can't allow “States' Rights” to
permit toddlers being killed—like Casey Anthony did to her daughter, Caylee?
Hmm... (Equal Protection issues, eh? Double Standards, we?)

@ Roseanne Barr / Cindy
Sheehan:

I looked at your campaign website,
and I think you would speak up against the oppression of a lot of over-burdened
college students, and demand fair treatment. And, as I'm a “Ron Paul”
Republican, I also am impressed that you have the courage to stand up to the
“War Hawks” in both the Democratic & Republican parties. Remember too, as I
said above to Gov. Gary Johnson, I don't hate gays, and I don't hold it against
someone for having a gay “orientation,” since this is a temptation—and
temptation is NOT sin. However, our actions can be sin, and you seem to stand on
the wrong side of both gay marriage and rights of the unborn. (Hey, aren't the
unborn just as important as college students or gays? LOL) – So, with all due
respect, if you want my vote, you'll have to “flip-flop” at least in regard to
abortion, and make a sincere apology.

“We recognize each person’s right
to determine her or his own sexual preferences. We respect the right of all
individuals to control their own bodies, including free abortion on
demand.”

Roseanne, you and Cindy are
talented people: I have faith in you, and I appreciate your courage to run for
President, but you won't get my vote just for being a “cool person,” ok?

@ Dr. Jill Stein, MD / Cheri
Honkala:

Dr. Stein, like I said to
Roseanne, I think you are pushing some really good ideas & want to help
people, but wait! You're a doctor, and you've taken the Hippocratic Oath:
“"Primum non nocere"”—to “First, do no harm” to your patient, right?

With all due respect, I take issue
with your stance on abortion, just as with the others, and I'd like you to
reconsider your views on abortion and the Roe v. Wade decision, ok? Just as with
'Dred Scott,' the US Supreme Court sent down a 'bad' decision—and just as we
would not vote to retain any of the seven (7) justices that voted to uphold Dred
Scott, likewise, I find myself at odds with your request for me to vote for
you.

To all: I'm not
voting early next week, in all likelihood: I'm going to wait until all your
campaigns have had a chance to respond, before I vote. Thank you all for your
time/effort to clarify these issues. (If you can answer me on all these points,
it may help you “reach out” to other voters in the closing week of the election
cycle.)

“Student: Good morning Mr. Vice
President. I was wondering how do you feel about the idea that government
subsidies and interference with the free market, for example, by artificially
increasing availability of student loans is at least partially responsible for
rising tuition costs. And now we're facing a possible student loan bubble and
subsequent collapse just as we're coming out of the housing crisis...Biden: By
the way, government subsidies have impacted upon rising tuition costs. It's a
conundrum here. But if we went the rate your view of the free market route what
we would have done is we would have not of done that. We would not have
increased pell grants, for example. And there would be 9 million fewer students
in college today. [line-break] And there would be hundreds of thousands and
millions of students who would not be in college who don't get Pell grants
because there was no ability for them to borrow money through Perkins loans
and/or have the tax deduction. [line-break] So you are right, in a pure
free-market the college tuition would have to be lower because there would be
fewer people going to school, they wouldn't have as much coming in.”

“Budget: Ryan is the primary
author of conservative tax and spending blueprints...Other elements of the
budget plan would cut projected spending for Medicaid, which provides health
care for the poor, as well as food stamps, student loans and other
social programs that Obama and Democrats have pledged to defend. In all, it
projects spending cuts of $5.3 trillion over a decade, and would cut future
projected deficits substantially. It also envisions a far-reaching overhaul of
the tax code of the sort Romney has promised.”

*** Comments: Good. Students don't
NEED to take out huge loans; this induces colleges to raise tuition to match
increased borrowing abilities. Besides costing students, it costs taxpayers,
since tax dollars either make or guarantee all Federal Student Loans.

“Ryan has also repeatedly voted
for or proposed limiting funding and eligibility for Pell grants,
which go to low-income college students.”

*** Comments: Good. Pell Grants
also distort the Free Market & bid up tuition inflation, as in easy loans.
This also costs taxpayer dollars for no good reason, since colleges simply raise
tuition to match increased grant monies.

** Paul Ryan takes is still
right regarding Pell Grants, but has flip-flopped regarding Loans:

“The right-wing lawmaker [Paul
Ryan] responded:

“…Pell Grants have become
unsustainable. It’s all borrowed money…. Look, I worked three jobs to pay off my
student loans after college. I didn’t get grants, I got loans, and we need to
have a system of viable student loans to be able to do this...”

[skip to 2nd-to-last paragraph]
Ryan’s comfortable with these families taking on crushing debts, but
student-loan debt nationwide is already nearing the $1 trillion mark — even more
than Americans owe on credit cards — which very likely undermines the economy as
young workers with disposable income inject less money into the economy and more
into banks.”

(“Paul Ryan and how to lose the
future,” By Steve Benen, October 24, 2011 2:40 PM)

*** Comment: Ryan flip-flops on
Student Loans. Whaaat!? His position here is OK with crushing debt, which is NOT
good.

“Congressman Ryan responded,
saying, ”Cause Pell Grants have become unsustainable. It’s all borrowed
money…Look, I worked three jobs to pay off my student loans after college. I
didn’t get grants, I got loans, and we need to have a system of viable student
loans to be able to do this.””

(“V.P. Pick Paul Ryan Once Told a
Student He Should Work 3 Jobs to Pay For College Instead of Taking Pell Grants,”
by Denise, August 15, 2012)

*** Comment: Ryan flip-flops on
Student Loans. Whaaat!?

MITT ROMNEY “right” on
loans, questionable on grants:

“Speaking at the event, hosted by
Spanish-language TV station Univision and held at the University of Miami,
Romney went against his vice presidential pick. “I care about your education and
helping people of modest means get a good education and we’ll continue a Pell
grant program,” he said. “The Republican budget called for Pell grants being
capped out at their current level. My inclination would be to have them go with
the rate of inflation.” [line-break] The rate of inflation was 3 percent in
2011. Romney added that keeping the grants growing at the rate of inflation
would help keep college costs down overall. [line-break] “The best thing I can
do is not to [say,] ‘Hey, I’ll loan you more money. Here let’s loan you,’” he
said. “I don’t want to overwhelm you with debts. I want to make sure you can pay
back the debts you’ve already got and that will happen with good jobs.” Romney
also spoke of the need for merit pay to attract high-quality teachers...”

*** Comments: Partly-good: Romney
does not understand the need to reduce excessive “grant” expenditures (which bid
up the CO$T of college), but he's brave enough to oppose so-called “good”
Student Loans, which are also not really helpful, since they only benefit the
colleges –not the student.)

“"Look, I worked three jobs to pay
off my student loans after college," House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D.
Ryan said last week at a town hall meeting in his native Wisconsin. "I didn't
get grants, I got loans, and we need to have a system of viable student loans to
be able to do this."”

“"Nobody likes to be tagged as
having increased the debt limit for the United States by a trillion dollars. As
president, you start realizing, you know what, we can't play around with this
stuff. . . . (Raising the limit is) important for the country." [line-break] --
President Barack Obama, April 15, 2011 [line-break] Obama's not unique in using
the debt ceiling vote for partisan posturing. But on the Flip-O-Meter, he still
earns a Full Flop.”

Comments: He flip-flopped,
but at least he's man enough to admit he didn't want to raise the debt ceiling
in the first place.

Obama Flip-Flops:
PAC-fundraising (but he was honest enough to admit opposition to
this)

“Our ruling [line-break] We don’t
take a position on the merits of a flip. We’re just interested in whether a
person’s position has changed. In this case, Obama and his campaign have gone
from refusing to fundraise for super PACs to declaring that senior officials
will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events. We respect that the
president himself won’t participate, and that he still plans to fight the role
of special interest money in campaigns, but that’s a major reversal of position,
and we rate it a Full Flop.”

Comments: While Pres. Obama
flip-flopped, I also respect him for opposing special interest influence in
campaigns; Contributions are OK, but excess rich PAC influences distort
Democracy. Pres. Obama may not have been wrong to take advantage of PAC
contributions, even if the concept is flawed.

Obama Flip-Flops: Libya
intervention

“In 2007, Obama was adamant that
the president did not have the power to authorize an attack if there was no
imminent threat to the U.S. But now he has authorized just such an action. Full
Flop.”

(“Is Barack Obama's Libya
intervention a flip-flop from what he said in 2007?,” PolitiFact)

Obama Flip-Flops on
'ObamaCare':

“During the 2008 presidential
campaign, Obama expressed opposition to a mandate requiring all Americans to buy
health care insurance. In a Feb. 28, 2008, interview on the Ellen DeGeneres
show, Obama sought to distinguish himself from then-candidate Hillary Clinton by
saying, "Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a
slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody
buy health care. [line-break] "She’d have the government force every individual
to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the
problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford
it," Obama said. "So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest
difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I
don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if
things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would
solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn't."”

[Editor's Note: Prior to Barack
Obama's Pro statement from Sep. 9, 2009, he expressed a Con position as
indicated by his statement during a Feb. 28, 2008 interview on NBC's Ellen
DeGeneres Show, available at www.cnsnews.com, below.]

"Both of us [Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton] want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight
difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy
health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance
and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people
don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it. So, I focus more on
lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to
elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m
not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate
everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It
doesn’t."

(“Should there be a federal
mandate for individuals to have health insurance?,” 2012 Presidential Election
ProCon.org is an independent, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) nonprofit public
charity)

“OBAMA: "[Hillary Clinton would]
have the government FORCE every individual to buy [health] insurance, and I
don't have such a mandate because I don't think [so] ... [But] the problem is
not that people don't want health insurance. It's that they can't afford it.
Well, if things were that easy, I could ... uh ...mandate everybody buy a house,
and uh ...that ... you know... and that would solve... ah... you know, the
problem of homelessness. [Well], it doesn't."”

(“Obama
opposed ObamaCare on Ellen's DeGeneres' show In 2008,” Published on Mar 28,
2012, by Gordon Wayne Watts: Youtube clip of Obama's own words)

““Both of us want to provide
health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a
good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the
government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a
mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health
insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it,” Obama said in a Feb. 28, 2008
appearance on Ellen DeGeneres' television show.”

“Our ruling [line-break] The DNC
portrayed Romney as having flip-flopped on his support for TARP. But the
statements the DNC chose for the ad echo what Romney has said on the topic all
along -- that a Wall Street bailout was necessary to prevent a financial
calamity, but the way the money was administered was poor. We rate it No
Flip.”

“Meanwhile, in an interview with
KDVR-TV in Denver, Romney said, "I don't favor civil unions if they are
identical to marriage other than by name. My view is that domestic partnership
benefits, hospital visitation rights and the like are appropriate, but the
others are not."...But despite making policy overtures to gay voters, Romney
consistently drew the line at gay marriage, even as far back as 1994.”

“Our ruling [line-break] In 2002,
Romney refused to make "a pledge in writing" on taxes. Four years later, he
signed one and touted it as a selling point for his candidacy. In our book,
that’s a Full Flop.”

“Our ruling [line-break] In 1994,
as a candidate running against a liberal icon in a liberal state, Romney said he
was "not trying to return to Reagan-Bush." Then, 13 years later as he ran for
the GOP presidential nomination, Romney spoke approvingly of the former
president. Ever since, Romney’s affection for Reagan’s presidency has only
grown. We rate this shift a Full Flop.”

"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was silent. I was
not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a
Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a
trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for
me."(Martin Niemöller, given credit for a quotation in The Harper Religious and
Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret Pepper(New York: Harper
&Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17,of Religious Cleansing in the
American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier,Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and
Family Publications.Some versions have Mr. Niemöller saying:
"Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a
Protestant"; other versions have him saying that they came for Socialists,
Industrialists, schools, the press,and/or the Church; however, it's certain he
DID say SOMETHING like this. Actually, they may not have come for the Jews
first, as it's more likely they came for the prisoners, mentally handicapped,
&other so-called "inferiors" first -as historians tell us-so they could get
"practiced up"; however, they did come for them -due to the silence of their
neighbors -and due in part to their own silence. So: "Speak up now or forever
hold your peace!"-GWW